Remember: Our Trustee's Holiday Season Break begins at close of business on: December 15, 2017!Which means he will not be available from then until: January 15, 2018; during which time there will be no conference calls and no support calls to our Trustee. However, the Fulfillment Office will only be closed from: December 22, 2017, until: January 8, 2018.

So, make sure that you take care of any of your end of year needs now, before our offices close.

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;use this link for more: contact information.We hope this information is helpful to you.Tell everybody about Team Law!

After reading this announcement, you may remove it by clicking the “X” in the upper right corner of the announcement's green background.

To Everyone:Because the “Call to Action” page was posted globally (at the top of each forum of our Open Forum system) it was locked from direct replies; thus, this topical thread was created for supportive comments and inquiries. Respectfully, on, July 24, 2013, shortly after we announced Team Law's Phase 3 support of Zane's ongoing action, we posted this: Comment Page.

Accordingly, this topical thread is reserved for positive supportive comments and inquiries only.

Therefore, please do not try to use this space to voice opposing opinions to this action (for all such will be deleted).That is because such comments have nothing to do with our support of this action.

However, if you believe you have a meritorious comment espousing a negative concern, you may submit it to Admin who can review your opinion; and, if it has merit, we will post your concerns with our response to the same.

Team Law supports Zane’s action because it is the right thing to do in accord with the law.

With that we open this page for supportive comments on the “Call to Action”.

We hope this information is helpful to you.Tell everybody about Team Law!

An attorney named Berg, challenged the eligibility of Øbama AFTER Øbama was elected and sworn in.The Supreme Court said that he had "no standing" in law to challenge. That since Berg never signed the constitution, as a contract, he could not enforce its terms. That it was up to the union States to challenge Øbama. And they , as states, as headed by a governor or a legislature of senators and congressmen, did not challenge. Maybe because they are "federal districts, also known as "federal states" because of their tin or ein's whatever they have, and as such they also have not real standing.

So where are we now?Back to educating the "masses" of which I am one person of those masses.

Clabianco:Thank you for your inquiry.As noted in our original post regarding the “Call to Action” (Phase II) there have been many challenges to Øbama’s candidacy for President (though the list of such cases, posted on Wikipedia, is not likely a complete list of all such cases it does show a brief view of such cases such that one might review the same for the purpose of noticing what was wrong with each such case—the advantage of such a review is that it will show what did not work and why—see: Barack Øbama presidential eligibility litigation).

Now, let’s first notice that, almost in spite of the Constitution’s limitation, expressed as follows:

In the United States Constitution at Article II § 1 clause 6, Congress wrote:No Person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President… .

In law, there is no provision that limits anyone from running for the said office. Any person desiring to run for said office simply pays the registration fee and respectively registers their candidacy. If that person is supported by one of the major political parties (like: The Democratic Party), it is often assumed that such a party would not support a candidate that cannot possibly qualify for the office. However, such support does not qualify any person for the office.

The only thing that does qualify a candidate for the office of United States President is the United States Constitution; which requires that to be seated as President the candidate must be:

A natural born Citizen of the United States;

At least 35 years of age; and

A Resident within the United States for at least 14 years.

Respectively, until a candidate is elected by the Electoral College’s vote (see: the 12th Article of Amendment) into the office of United States President Elect, no provision of law provides jurisdiction for lawfully contesting any candidate’s candidacy for the office.

Respectively, if you review all of the cases that were brought against Barrack Øbama contesting his candidacy prior to either election, you will find the courts always properly dismissed the cases ruling either that the court lacked jurisdiction or the case failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Nonetheless, many of the cases so brought were brought after the elections; however, those cases were also all dismissed with the same rulings from the court. Of course, those dismissals are easily understood because of the constitutional provision giving the Senate exclusive jurisdiction over the removal of a seated President; via impeachment. Respectively, once a President is seated in the office, no court can acquire jurisdiction over any issue regarding that president’s candidacy.

So, the question remains, ‘How does the law provide for a proper timely contest challenging the candidacy of anyone running for the office of United States President?’

The answer is: ‘Federal law provides no such opportunity’; however, some State laws require that only candidates that qualify for an office can be placed on that State’s ballots. Thus, an action contesting that in such a State could be brought successfully. In fact, just such an action was brought in Georgia before President Øbama was elected in 2012; and, for a while, it looked like that case would keep President Øbama off of the Georgia ballots. However, in the end, the Georgia court correctly returned the ruling that given that Mr. Øbama was already a seated President, the authority over which seating rested in the United States Congress, wherefore, Georgia did not possess the authority to contest the candidacy of such a seated President; and, the case was dismissed for failure to state a claim.

The bottom line: though the law provides little or no avenue to contest the candidacy of any person running for the office of United States President, the law clearly provides the time between the election of the President Elect and the seating of that person into the office of United States President as the time for just such a contest. Respectively, the place the law provides for such contests is two fold:

For Congress:

That time is provided Congress to review the Electoral College’s election both in count and to vet the President Elect’s constitutional qualification

For the people:

Via the right of Quo Warranto.

Respectively, regardless of the case or the court into which any case may be brought, those two styles of action are the only places provided for a timely contest of a President Elect being seated in the office of United States President.

Respectively, the only time we are aware of any such challenges having been brought by anyone, in the past, was the Quo Warranto contest brought by Zane Grey in Phase I of the Call to action.

Of course, we agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the contest you referred to (brought by the attorney Berg) because it is clear that Berg failed to meet either of the two provisions noted above; thus, like all of the other cases that were improperly or untimely brought, Berg’s case had no standing in the court and was dismissed.

However, though we have not read Berg’s case, which might bring some light to why the Supreme Court would allegedly provide such a ridiculous allegation that if you were not a physical signer of the Constitution you could not enforce its terms, we disagree with the implications of such a ridiculous ruling. The lack of standing in law comes from Berg’s failure to bring a timely case in a proper venue regarding an issue the court can hear (as we showed above). However, if Berg presented an argument wherein he was trying to enforce an element of the Constitution, which he perceived was his right, in a manner contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and laws that follow (et seq.), then we can see how such a ruling would be proper from the Supreme Court. The issue at hand there would be the interpretation of the Constitution, which is an obligation of the Supreme Court, and of the individual people and their personal interpretations and opinions. Thus, it would be entirely proper for the Supreme Court to rule that given that Berg was not one of the actual signers of the Constitution, he could not (in and of himself) declare the meaning of the words or phrases of the Constitution and thus, enforce it in accord with his personal interpretations and opinions. Respectively, the purpose of the Constitution was to form and control the respective government so formed and to provide for the means for enforcement of the Constitution. Respectively, if Berg was attempting to go outside of those provided means with his own interpretation and opinions, it would be totally proper for the court to so rule.

We also disagree that it possibly could be up to the “Union States” to make such a challenge; for the reasons stated above; with the one exception already noted. That exception being that the Constitution provides that the only party that can lawfully challenge a seated United States President is the Senate, via impeachment; thus to correctly understand a Supreme Court ruling to that effect, you have to notice that each State has two senators; thus, if the people of a State, or its Governor, were to inspire those senators to take the matter to the United States Senate, where they inspired the Senate to impeach the President; then the Union States could so challenge President Øbama’s propriety in office.

Nonetheless, neither that potential (for impeachment) nor that ruling render the people’s right to challenge each member of Congress’ with Quo Warranto for failure to do what the Constitution, without question, required of them in the first instance; that being their failure to vet the issue in the first instance!

Thus, you asked: “So where are we now?”Respectfully, that is the very reason for the people following forward with the exercise of their right to Quo Warranto. And, respectively,

You were absolutely correct when you wrote:Back to educating the "masses" of which I am one person of those masses.

[/quote]Of course, that is exactly why Team Law took up the responsibility (response + ability) of supporting Zane Grey in his original action, and that which follows. From the beginning of Team Law we have been a singular unique organization; in that we help people learn how to learn the law from their own firsthand experience of studying the law from its source.

Your final point of inquiry asked us to reply on the Quo Warranto issue; though we though we already did that perhaps the following will help:

Some people contested the reasonableness of Zane Grey’s case saying: “Because that case had to be brought through the Attorney General’s office and had to be approved by the Attorney General (President Øbama’s own appointee and boss), who would not timely approve the action or otherwise allow it to go forward—what good could be had by bringing such an action with so little possibility of success?” And, they were correct in their assumption that the Attorney General would not proceed forward with that action. We even told Zane that from the beginning. Still, he wanted to go forward with the action and timely make the application for the Quo Warranto action. His reason: “Because, it is the right and proper thing to do!”

Respectively, because we agreed that it was the right and proper thing to do, we supported his action with our original publication of the “Call to Action” article (which article contains links to sample copies of the documents that were used by those that were in support of Zane Grey’s original Quo Warranto action, and that which follows).

If we accept your final point of inquiry as one that, like those that so challenged Zane’s initial application for Quo Warranto, contests, that is: “Why go after each member of Congress for their respective failure to follow the Constitution’s mandate that no such person can ever be allowed to sit in the office of the United States President?” Then our response might help you and others understand why we continue to support Zane’s action.

As we already stated, though Zane’s original action had little chance for success, that small chance for success was legal, lawful, properly executed and it was a very real chance for success. When Team Law added its support to that action, that very small chance for success grew. Respectively, what would have happened if the word about that action would have gone viral and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of letters, e-mail and other forms of contact, from the individual people throughout America, would have flooded the offices of the Attorney General and Congress. Would not the chances of that action being successful have increased even if the effect was Congress openly vetting the issue and resolving that matter once and for all?

It should be obvious that if the response of the people was large enough, Congress would have been inspired to act in accord with the Constitution’s mandate.

Respectively, we ask, what about now?Given that Congress failed to follow that elemental requirement of vetting the President Elect’s constitutional qualification for sitting in the office before seating him, Quo Warranto applies to each member of Congress. So, is it not right and proper for the people to follow the law to properly, legally and timely bring actions against each of those members of Congress that so violated that mandate from the Constitution?

Again, the answer is obvious: “Yes!”

So, what would happen if in each of the twelve federal district courts throughout the country Quo Warranto actions were brought by at least one person from each Congressional District (throughout the United States), wherein each of those people brought a separate Quo Warranto action against each of their representative members of Congress (including: their respective Member of the House of Representatives, their two Senators and the V.P.)? Would those actions have an effect?

At this point, we will refer to several distinctive Quo Warranto actions that Team Law’s Trustee (in his own personal natural capacity) raised against judges that acted outside their lawful authority. In each such case, though the actions did make it to court and the respective judges were summoned to appear, they did not appear. Instead, they each either retired or voluntarily left office or the government that had posted them in office, removed them from the office (fired the judge). Thus, though none of those cases actually made it to court, the Quo Warranto actions themselves had the desired effect—which is removal from office.

In the case of Congress, whether the members of Congress;

Stand against the actions in court;

Quit of their own accord and thus avoid prosecution; or

Otherwise, come up with some other way of sidestepping the pending actions;

What will be the effect of the people exercising their right to ask: “By what authority” (Quo Warranto)? What is the chance that the desired effect of compelling Congress to honor their responsibility to follow the law?

We believe the effect would be accomplished regardless of the final outcome. There are two ways to inspire the Senate to impeach Øbama for the cause shown:

The State governors and/or legislatures can inspire their United States Senators to inspire the Senate to impeach; or,

The people can inspire their United States Senators to inspire the Senate to impeach.

Respectively, we can do little to move the states’ governors and/or their legislatures to do what must be done; however, we can help educate the people to help them learn how to learn the law so they learn to can properly apply it and so preserve our nation and our Law.

Respectively, if the people will timely bring the needed quo warranto actions, the result of those actions will be a clean sweep of Congress. Of course, in that case, in accord with the Constitution, the State governors can appoint new members of Congress in every seat just as quickly as those seats are vacated by the effects of the quo warranto actions; and given that the current Congress will not be in session at the time of those actions, Congress will continue to function—howbeit, with a new understanding that the people can and are willing to unite on a point of law. So, what do you expect the first act will be of the newly seated Senate? We believe it will be the impeachment of President Barrack Øbama; to finally vet the issue of his qualification to serve in that office.

You see, never in the history of mankind has there been a time when the people had the ability to unite and communicate instantly, or the ability to instantly access the law and respectively learn anything—even how to learn and apply the law. Never before has the ability existed for an idea to “go viral”. And, never before in the history of our nation has there been a time when the Constitution has been so routinely violated by governmental officers and agencies. As if it was not enough to be attacked by, what people believe is, our own government, just to justify unconstitutional acts like: the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act, with Øbama came QbamaCare; which the Supreme Court ruled was simply another tax. Yea, right, a so called tax that gives the powers of governance direct control you’re your body. No! Enough is enough! It is time for the people to Stop! Learn! and, Apply the law!

So, how about that very idea you expressed; that of:

Educating the "masses"of which I am one!

What if we could use the communication tools available to do just that:

Spread the word through Twitter, Facebook, smart phones, tablets and computers over the internet;

“Help the people learn how to learn the law.”

Help the people learn how to apply the law to save themselves and our nation at the same time.

That is exactly why, Team Law just started holding conference calls every weekday morning at 9:00 AM (mountain time).

We welcome your participation on those calls.

We hope this information is helpful to you.Tell everybody about Team Law!

Admin,I just want to take a minute to thank you for your continuing, ongoing support of this action. It makes me feel proud of the People who see the extreme importance of this action and want to help. It also helps in that I don’t feel so alone in my journey…which is to help the People restore our Constitutional Republic. I’m on that journey to take our nation back from the foreign corporations acting as the government that are now in complete control of it…so that we can restore freedom and liberty for real; not just give lip service to the notion.

It gives me great amounts of inspiration to know: that my children can live comfortably in our nation without fear of the government; that the government employees who serve them will once again recognize that their primary duty is the preservation of constitutionally protected rights; and, that those employees will enforce the same regardless of whether my children know how to assert those rights (which they will).

Of course, we have to complete this mission first…or they aren’t going to experience that…ever.

The constitutions don’t give us our rights. We get our rights and our sovereign authority from our Creator. The constitutions simply create the governments; and, through them we give government officials the very limited privilege of managing governmental affairs; which affairs do not include governing the people—we must govern ourselves.

Pass or fail, I will never forget the incredible, priceless support you have given in this endeavor to persevere. Of all the organizations around our nation trying to restore freedom and liberty to America, Team Law is the only one I have found that is on the right track to do just that.

I couldn’t have asked for better support!

Zane.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." (Hosea 4:6)

Send your Request:The following is a sample copy of the Request for Quo Warranto Letter others have sent: Sample letter.Use the following combined methods of delivery to send your request for Quo Warranto Action to the Attorney General:

Send each of the above to the U.S. Attorney General himself, Eric H. Holder, Jr., requesting that he institute a Quo Warranto action against each of the members of Congress from the congressional district where you live.You must remember; when using such a sample letter, you will need to at least change all of the yellow highlighted text to the appropriate information related to the specific congressional district (find your Members of Congress here) and federal district court in your area (find your district court here) before you send any such fax, e-mail or letter!

Then, Report your action:Send Admin a private message telling us what Congressional District you referenced in your Quo Warranto request letter to the AG; that will help us track which congressional districts still need to find someone to send such requests to the AG. The bottom line: we need your feedback so we can know how well Operation Clean Sweep is working.

Like us on Facebook; share Team Law’s comments on your wall and refer others to do the same; and/or,

Refer people to this article on our forum; the way we like to do that is by simply directing people to TeamLaw.net and telling them to follow the “Call to Action” link in the headline of the article on that page;

Copy this Sample e-mail message and send it as e-mail to everyone with whom you regularly communicate via e-mail.

And, make sure that after you send your letter to the Attorney General requesting Quo Warranto Actions against the Congressmen from your venue, send Admin a private message telling us what Congressional District you referenced in your letter to the Attorney General—then keep spreading the word until the job is done.

Also, if we had an additional $350,000 in supportive donations, we could kick this movement into high gear with a major marketing campaign. Respectively, if we had such additional funding (or more) we could finish the task within three months; or, perhaps less (depending on how much additional funding we get).

We hope this information is helpful to you.Tell everybody about Team Law!

Rechayahu:We just completed an update of our Corp. U.S. Myth 11 that you might want to take a look at. We have had quite a few comments made regarding the many court cases people filed to contest Barrack Øbama’s candidacy or his election. Because Congress holds exclusive jurisdiction over such matters, all such cases have always been properly dismissed by the courts; however, some of those courts did give their non-jurisdictional opinions as if they had merit; which they don’t. Nonetheless, such opinions can at times sway the masses that do not know the law.

That is why we feel it is important to address the most egregious of those opinions so that people can get an idea of the necessity to actually learn the law from the source through their own firsthand research; and, of course, that is what Team Law is all about.

We hope this information is helpful to you.Tell everybody about Team Law!

Good evening:I recently found your site on "Search", while looking for information on "Quo Warranto".

I am very interested in the "Quo Warranto" that TEAM LAW has issued against Barrack Obama. Actually, Barrack Obama was the reason I was searching for this Writ, so when I saw that you had already taken this action I came to review the process and results.

After reviewing the information, I shared it with an organization I am a member of which has members in all 50 states. As I am sure you know, when dealing with a large group, everyone has questions. I have tried to list all that was asked on Phase III, please help us understand the process better by answering their questions, which will make it easier to obtain their support in taking action. We would greatly appreciate your help with the answers.

We would like to know:

Is there a time limit on a Writ, if so, has this expired or how much time is left?

How many people is required per state to file the "Quo Warranto" ?

Do we need a state official to agree to file, if so, should they refuse, do we just file at the Court House ourselves?

When we file, do we reference your filing of eligibility or use a different reference?

What enforcement action is taken, when and by what law enforcement agency?

Is there a list of states that have not filed?

We would also like to know if TEAM LAW is going to file against every member of Congress for ignoring the Writ or just a select list, such as those that held leadership positions at the time and should the people file from the 50 states?

Though you initially posted your inquiry as a private message to Admin, it was one of those posts that seemed destined to be answered on the Open Forum. Wherefore we moved you inquiry to the Comments re: “Call to Action” Phase 3 page; so, everyone can benefit from both your inquiry and our response.

Your initial comments indicate that you found our Call to Action page and possibly read through that page; however, it is possible that you (and or others new to our Open Forum system) may not have noticed how the blue underlined text links to other pages where most of the questions you asked are provided. Also, when people post comments about what they learned on our websites to others on 3rd party websites, that too can be the source of many such questions. Therefore, to help anyone that hasn’t already found those answers on our Call to Action page, we are answering each of the questions from your inquiry right here as follows:

Question: “Is there a time limit on a Writ, if so, has this expired or how much time is left?”

Answer: “No, so long as the violator is in office the remedy is available; wherefore, there is no time limit.”

Question: “How many people is required per state to file the "Quo Warranto" ?”

Answer: “‘Required’ is an interesting word. By it do you mean required in the sense that when Mrs. Powell’s asked: “What kind of government did you give us?” Benjamin Franklin said: “A Constitutional Republic if you can keep it.” Thus, in order to “keep it” people must (are required to) hold violating official accountable via Quo Warranto actions. Nonetheless, no one can be required by law to bring a Quo Warranto actions. Thus, the condition of “required” is linked to each of the individual people’s desire to keep our Constitutional Republic functioning. To do that with the certainty effectiveness, in the conditions we find ourselves in today, it is necessary for each of the people in each district to move separately at the same time across the nation as if in one mass of the people. Respectively, each State has whatever number of congressional districts its population designates; wherefore, the people of each State need at least one person (more is better) bringing an action from each congressional district within that State.”

Question: “Do we need a state official to agree to file, if so, should they refuse, do we just file at the Court House ourselves?”

Answer: “No. State officials are not involved in such actions. The process is outlined in the second outline on the Call to Action page; right after the sentence: “There is no time to wait; therefore, do your part:”.”

Question: “When we file, do we reference your filing of eligibility or use a different reference?”

Answer: “Again, samples of the forms others used for the process are already provided within that last referenced outline; those forms easily provide that answer.”

Question: “What enforcement action is taken, when and by what law enforcement agency?”

Answer: “The Court issued writ is self-enforcing. Once the writ is issued, the officer is simply out of office; the office is vacant and the removed officer is instantly absent any authority to act in the office at all.”

Question: “Is there a list of states that have not filed?”

Answer: “The best way to consider that point is: because, no one has moved, or will move, forward with the court action, until we have at least one person from each Congressional District in place ready for training on the next step; we are acting like none of the States have their districts covered. In reality we have only had two States confirmed with us that they have someone that filed a petition in each of their districts. Still, until we have more people actively taking part we aren’t planning on releasing that information—right now it is more important to spread the word until we have a movement that looks like it is moving towards completion. Releasing that information too soon would have the tendency to limit the rise of such a movement. Of course, once we have sufficient support to start getting ready to move into training mode for those that are planning to proceed with actions, we will certainly be ready to provide more information of that nature. Experience with such matters proves that because this kind of thing requires individual learning and action from everyone willing to do the work; the only important Congressional District in this cause of action is the one you are in. Thus, it is counter productive to post such information until it is time to move. Respectively, because those that are helping the people prepare and get together to act as one; bringing all of the actions in all of the federal courts on the same day, will need to be apprised of that kind of information; it is likely that only they will be provided with that information. For everyone else, because there is no limit to how many of the people can participate; and, because each of us has the responsibility to hold such violators accountable, everyone aware of the process should get involved and take action. The bottom line: the more people that participate in the process the better. Respectively, our answer to your final lettered question is because every member of Congress that is still seated in office that was in office when Barrack Øbama was seated for his last term is subject to Quo Warranto and every person aware of the Call to Action needs to participate by bringing such an action against those violators.”

Our answer to your final question:

Karol424 wrote:We would also like to know if TEAM LAW is going to file against every member of Congress for ignoring the Writ or just a select list, such as those that held leadership positions at the time and should the people file from the 50 states?

No. Team Law does not have standing to file any action against any member of Congress. Team Law is an educational organization that helps people learn how to learn the law from its source. Only the Attorney General (AG) can bring a Quo Warranto action against a Congressman; respectively, if the people bring a Quo Warranto action to the AG, and the AG determines not to bring the case, the party that brought the action automatically has the right to proceed forward with the case as a special prosecutor for the AG's office.

Again, we think that the Call to Action page is quite clear; both as to the process and the parties (both those that sue and those that are being sued. Please review the outline we referenced above and remember the blue underlined text are links to other documents references and resources all of which should be helpful.

Now, as our final comment on this response: just imagine what that would be like. Right now, people all over the nation are imagining things only getting worse because they have no idea how to make a difference. So, just imagine what would happen if everyone that would like to see our Constitutional Republic form of government back in form honoring the Constitution would step up and take the Call to Action challenge. We would have our nation back. We would have our monetary system back and our economy would be sound (no more inflation/no more recession). Our nation would have no debt. There would be no need for income taxes. And, so many other things would automatically get resolved. If you don’t get how all of that would happen, just imagine the effect of the people unanimously standing up with the law against government officials that violate their offices and so easily removing them peacefully and lawfully. The effect is that those that come in to replace them obey the law and honor the Constitution. Ben Franklin got it right: “If we can keep it.” the key to keeping it is the people have to individually learn the law and apply it. The good news is: learning the law and applying it are actually quite easy. Learning how to properly apply a Quo Warranto action through the Attorney General’s office is the most powerful thing the people can do to control the government and it is exquisitely easy to learn how to apply the Quo Warranto action remedy.

We hope this information is helpful to you.Tell everybody about Team Law!

Thank you so much for giving of your time to explain in such detail to my questions. I feel sure we misunderstood the original post, in that, we misunderstood "TEAM LAWTeam Law" and if I am correct, "QUO WARRANTOQuo Warranto" is Common Law, not fictional corporate law.

If I am now understanding this process correctly, We The People could use the action of "QUO WARRANTOQuo Warranto" to remove every member of Congress that was seated at the time Barrack Øbama was seated as President, at the same time.

I believe if "QUO WARRANTOQuo Warranto" was explained to groups such as The Tea Party and Oath Keepers, their membership would get behind the action and with their numbers in membership, our Republic would be on solid ground within 30 to 60 days. Being a member of each organization, I presented the information supplied from TEAM LAWTeam Law to maybe 20 or so in each organization and received mixed opinions, mostly favorable, but resulted in the questions I presented to you. I am going to approach the officers with the information you have supplied.

Karol424:The capitalization was struck out in the part of the post we left on the Open Forum in accord with Rule 21. Respectively, Team Law’s name is a proper noun and as such is not properly spelled with all capital letters; therefore, we made that correction in the post as it remains on the Open Forum.

We also struck out the list of parties you referred to as candidates for Quo Warranto actions because the Call to Action as we have provided it refers only to the violations made by the members of Congress that seated Barrack Øbama in contradiction to the constitutional mandate for Congress to vet every President Elect’s candidacy and forbidding Congress from seating anyone that is not a “natural born Citizen”.

Respectively, we agree with your general sentiment: if the people were aware of the power and effectiveness of simply learning the law and applying it they would all stand at once and save the nation by simply following the law. Of course, that is exactly why Team Law exists; we help people learn how to learn the law so that they can learn how to apply the law properly.

When Benjamin Franklin answered Mrs. Powell’s question: ‘What did you give us?’ with “A Constitutional Republic, if you can keep it.” The presupposition implied by that answer is: ‘Because, the only way we (a nation of sovereigns) can keep our Constitutional Republic form of government is by applying the law; therefore, the only people that can keep it are those that learn and apply the law.’

And, that is exactly why we posted our Call To Action page, to help the people learn that most elemental component of the law that allows the people to make certain that the law is followed in government. Of course, that component is Quo Warranto. Respectively, we appreciate your sharing the Call To Action page with those organizations with which you have affiliations. All are welcome. We must work together and spread the word to save our nation. So, Thank you again for your support!

We hope this information is helpful to you.Tell everybody about Team Law!

Chimera:Though that is an interesting coincidence; we expect the only person that could actually answer that question is Eric Holder himself. One might say the choice seems to imply good timing. We can’t imagine anyone wanting to be on the Øbama ship in his final years in the Whitehouse.

We hope this information is helpful to you.Tell everybody about Team Law!